| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dobson: I have done my level best to do so all the way through, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let us compare the regulations with similar regulations pertaining to the same circumstances. The last time that similar regulations were introduced was in 1986, when another Tory Government abolished the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. The 1995 regulations are much meaner and more miserable in their approach to staff than were those introduced at the time of the 1986 negotiation.
Mr. Thomason:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson:
No. The hon. Gentleman constantly stands up and tries to cause me to go out of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I refuse to respond to the temptation any further.
The flavour of the regulations may be summarised as "meaner than Maggie", because they are meaner than the regulations that were introduced when Lady Thatcherwas Prime Minister. The provisions are much meanerand more miserable than those that applied whenMrs. Thatcher abolished the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties.
The regulations are designed to compensate a person who is affected by the local government reorganisation and who, in the process of that reorganisation, is forced to take a job with pay worse than their existing pay. Under the regulations, such compensation as is given will be given for only three years. Under the 1986 Thatcherite regulations, compensation made up the full difference between the previous pay and the new pay for seven years, and half the difference for one year. Under the regulations, the difference will be made up for only three years--half as good as Mrs. T.
The compensation will not make up all the difference between the pay that people would have had and the pay that they get, because--
Mr. Thomason:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the previous regulations had a cap imposed on them, which the 1995 regulations do not, so there is a big difference?
Mr. Dobson:
The people affected by the regulations, whom I have been consulting, all tell me that if they could go "snap" on the 1986 regulations instead of the 1995 regulations, they would do so. Generally speaking, whatever the differences between the two sets of regulations, the 1986 regulations, passed 10 years ago, were more advantageous to the people covered by them than are the 1995 regulations.
People will not be fully compensated for what they lose. Even in three years, people with their high level of pay would have reasonably expected pay increases, increments, and possibly bonus payments--even performance-related pay--but they will have to forgo all that, and the benchmark used to calculate compensation will only be the pay that they receive at the time when their pay decreases.
Let us suppose that a person was due to receive a pay increase as a result of a nationally negotiated agreement, or an increment, on the day that the scheme came into operation. As compensation will be calculated on the basis of the pay that the person received the day before the scheme came into operation, they will be robbed of one year's pay increase or increment. That is miserable and mean-minded.
Compensation payments will not be pensionable, so not only will people lose their pay during the three years, but their pension will be permanently lower than it would have been if they had stayed in their old job. The Government will not make any allowance for the pension. That is unfair generally, but especially unfair to people approaching retirement, who have worked hard all their lives and whose pension entitlement will be cut as well as their pay because they have lost out in the lottery of local government reorganisation, which was set in train by the present Deputy Prime Minister. I suppose it is yet another of his unsigned cheques.
At the other end of the time scale, people will not be entitled to any compensation unless they have been in post for 12 months before the scheme comes into operation.
I do not understand why that constraint applies. It is as much a pay cut for a person who has recently started a job as for a person who has been in it for a long time.
If the Government were logical and allowed people to include the compensation for pension purposes, it might be possible to justify giving a slight advantage to people who had served an authority for a long time. A person at the lower end of the pay scale, starting their career, who may have recently married, who has just been appointed or promoted, will lose out by receiving no compensation.
An important matter arises from the due commencement date of the regulations. Previously, the Minister and I have clashed over whether we understood orders and I believe that once it could be reasonably proved that neither of us understood the part of an order that was under discussion. As I understand the regulations, however, eligibility for compensation will come into operation only on the day of the election for the shadow authority.
In the case of people in the Brighton and Hove or Southampton group of authorities--I shall not read out all the place-names--the scheme will come into operation on 2 May 1996. A substantial problem will result, however, from the Government's decision to postpone elections or not to hold elections for the other tranche of authorities--Nottingham, Plymouth, The Wrekin, Blackpool, Blackburn and so on--because it is quite possible that, reasonably, those authorities will wish to make progress with reorganisation. It would make good sense for the new unitary authorities and the counties to start the reorganisation process once they know that reorganisation will take place. Even if they start moving people about and reorganising departments before the election day, that would trigger the arrangement.
People working for Nottinghamshire, Plymouth, Southend, The Wrekin, Warrington, Halton or the Medway Towns may therefore be moved in anticipation of local government reorganisation and may have their pay cut but not be eligible for the benefits of the compensation scheme.
Mr. Dobson:
The hon. Gentleman sits on his behind, saying that I am wrong, but I am not at all sure that I am wrong. Obviously, no one will move from one employer to another to his detriment during that time, but it is quite possible that forward-looking authorities will want to start reorganising their departments as quickly as possible to minimise costs and so on, and very many staff are therefore exposed to being shifted around to their detriment without being entitled to compensation. I do not think I am wrong about that. I suspect that I will be proved right--not about everything, but about some things. [Laughter.] It is all very well for people to laugh, but supposing Conservative Members were employed by these authorities and had to anticipate a change--
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
I shall explain why we are laughing as slowly and simply as I can. I am not laughing at the grief of people who find their employment disappearing. I am laughing at the spectacle of someone at the Dispatch Box admitting that he does not understand much of his brief but hoping that one day he will. That is highly insulting to those affected by the regulations.
Mr. Dobson:
I made a new year's resolution two or three years ago never to give way again to the hon. Gentleman--
The other problem that arises concerns the limitation on compensation. Compensation covers only remuneration, so that any leave entitlement that may have been built up over a long, hard-working career, or the number of hours worked, can be cut with no compensation. That too shows that these arrangements are harmful to a great many hard-working people. It is one reason why we shall vote against them tonight. I repeat: these regulations are meaner than Maggie, an achievement most people would have thought quite difficult.
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry):
We should note, first, the touching affection displayed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for Lady Thatcher. I shall see that she is informed instantly of the hon. Gentleman's retrospective Valentine. Meanwhile, he gave us an account of recent history which I should briefly like to correct, so as to set the debate in the necessary context.
When we set up the Cooksey commission, the hon. Gentleman and I agreed that there were some areas that needed to be reviewed, and we discussed which ones should be referred to the commission. The recommendations fell due before Christmas. We then had a period of consultation that closed yesterday. Indeed, the last two delegations came to the Department on Monday. We therefore need to reflect on the consultations, because we have not yet made up our minds--if we had, the consultations would have been a charade. In fact they were real.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |